The RSVP deadline is Friday, July 31, and attorneys, paralegals and legal assistants may call or email Case Manager Cathy McCleary (407-661-1123 or cmccleary@uww-adr.com) to accept or decline and get your name on our list for future seminar and Webinar opportunities.

Attendees are eligible for 1.0 credit of general CLE through The Florida Bar, and a complimentary luncheon will be served. Howard says there are at least 17 common mistakes, and he plans to cover his full list to give attendees some practical, actionable knowledge, as well as the free lunch and educational credit.

Thanks to all who participated in UWWM’s “Lean In”-inspired luncheon on July 29, 2015, at UWWM’s Maitland office. Partner Kimberly Sands and Shareholder Michelle Jernigan presented an introduction to The Grit Project developed by the ABA Section on Litigation, Women in Litigation.

Upchurch Watson White & Max is in its second year of CLE programs designed to explore issues of advocacy and professional development for those who wish to improve their litigation skills and the business of practicing law through research, shared experience, and recommended strategies.

At our recent gathering, Michelle presented “Grit” and “Growth” as defined by the ABA project and ways in which these concepts apply to defining and achieving individual goals as litigation professionals. Kimberly presented a business scenario derived from The Grit Project in which attendees participated in problem-solving.

Although this program was designed to address the challenges women have historically experienced in the practice of law, the issues addressed are not limited to women litigators, and these luncheons are open to all litigators interested in improving their skills in advocacy and business development. If you are interested in attending, please e-mail Cathy Klasne at cklasne@uww-adr.com, to join our invitation list. Our next CLE luncheon will be on October 21, 2015, also at UWWM’s Maitland office.

ORLANDO, Fla. (July 28, 2015) — Four mediators from Upchurch Watson White & Max will present two 75-minute workshops to at least 100 colleagues at the 23rd annual conference of the Florida Dispute Resolution Center on Friday and Saturday. They are drawing on decades of experience to flesh out their program, “How Do You Deal With This? Ethical Dilemmas and Practical Quandaries During Mediation.”

The speakers are:

Howard R. Marsee: Since 1996, Mr. Marsee has served thousands of hours as a mediator, arbitrator and special master, and he was a board-certified civil trial lawyer for 20 years, from 1983 to 2003. He is certified by the Florida Supreme Court to receive circuit-civil mediation appointments, certified by the U.S. District Court for the Middle of Florida to receive mediation appointments in cases pending before that court, and approved by the Florida 5th District Court of Appeal as an appellate mediator.

A. Michelle Jernigan: In 1988, she was one of the first mediators to be certified by the Florida Supreme Court. Since launching her mediation career in 1987, Ms. Jernigan has mediated thousands of cases throughout the state. A mediation trailblazer, Ms. Jernigan served as a consultant to the court as it established mediation mentorship rules. In 1997, Chief Justice Gerald Kogan first appointed her to the Florida Supreme Court Mediation Training Review Board.

Richard Reinhart: He has been a circuit civil mediator, certified by the Florida Supreme Court, for 10 years and has been with Upchurch Watson White & Max since 2010. Since 2008, he also has has worked part-time as a special magistrate for the Complex Business Case Division of the 9th Judicial Circuit. He was a civil trial attorney for 27 years, including lengthy stints as partner and shareholder in Atlanta and Orlando-area law firms.

Brandon S. Peters: He brings more than two decades of experience as a highly respected civil litigator to his mediation practice and has now successfully mediated complex disputes involving more than 500 parties. Mr. Peters enjoys the challenge of cases in which one or more participants are considered “difficult” by their opponents, and that should make him a perfect fit for this presentation.

The quartet of mediators has come up with 21 “perplexing, serious, not-so-serious and sometimes bizarre” scenarios that may be explored with the help of workshop attendees. The four will present problems that “test, vex and entertain the busy mediator,” according to conference organizers. “Attendees should come prepared to sit near the front of the room, scratch their heads and participate.”

Their workshops, from 10:30 to 11:45 a.m. Friday and Saturday, will add an ethics component to the CME (Continuing Mediator Education) offered by the conference planned for the JW Marriott Grande Lakes Resort in Orlando. In fact, up to 14.1 CME is available to Florida mediators who attend. For more information, please visit www.flcourts.org and click on the Dispute Resolution tab.

MAITLAND, Fla. (July 21, 2015) — One of Florida’s first Supreme Court-certified mediators, A. Michelle Jernigan, also has a decades-long interest in psychology and the brain. In a Webinar sponsored by the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution, she will discuss the basics of brain structure and function in clear, simple terms — along with practical ways to apply this knowledge at the mediation table.

Ms. Jernigan, a shareholder with Upchurch Watson White & Max, will present “Using Brain Science for Better Mediations” at noon Tuesday, July 28. The Webinar moderator, Spencer M. Punnett II, is the author of “Representing Clients in Mediation: A Guide to Optimal Results” (ABA Publishing, 2013), a research-based book that has been praised as “the current standard reference that all must have” by the Hon. David Torrey, writing in Lex and Verum.

Among other insights, mediators can learn:
• The relation between “mirror neurons” and empathy
• Balancing the brain’s primitive drivers of fear and reward
• Dopamine, norepinephrine, and the “top of the curve” for negotiations
• “Availability bias” and the “sunk cost effect”
• How glucose and oxygen levels affect “decision fatigue”

“If your brain tells you this free 60-minute webinar sounds interesting, REGISTER TODAY and mark it on your calendar!” organizers say. Please note this Webinar is free for members of the Section of Dispute Resolution, $25 for ABA members and $50 for all others.

Serving as a juror was a fascinating experience. I wish I had not been excused as the alternate so I could have been on the inside of the jury process from beginning to end. I appreciated the time and input of the two jurors I interviewed. They were respectful and responsive and made it possible for me to write this article.

Not only did I have the opportunity to see how a jury values a particular case, but also I gained insight into their thinking and decision making. Some of my assumptions were shaken; others were confirmed.

I was concerned about the actual size of the pothole. This jury recognized that it was large enough to cause the damage complained of, so conflicts in testimony regarding the size did not bother them. This jury did not concern itself with minor inconsistencies in testimony, whereas my legal mind did. This jury did not seek to distinguish between symptoms from prior injuries and this one, whereas I did. This jury did not fall prey to the adage that juries are emotional and unpredictable. This jury saw through expert witnesses who were not credible. This jury did have sympathy for the plaintiff, but did not seek to punish the defendant. This jury was not concerned with reviewing medical records; my legal mind would have forced me to at least peruse them.

I knew the settlement range for a case like this; the jury did not. While I knew the verdict was on the high side, they were concerned that they did not award enough.

In mediation, I often attempt to help parties and lawyers stay focused on the big picture and not get too “caught in the weeds.” That is what the jury did in this case. They did not examine the evidence microscopically and then piece it together. They flew overhead and viewed the case from 30,000 feet. Perhaps the next time the lawyers in my cases get caught up in the weeds, I will take them flying. Thirty-thousand feet sounds like a good height to me.

MAITLAND, Fla. (July 1o, 2015) – One of the first circuit civil trial mediators to be certified by Florida’s Supreme Court, Lawrence M. Watson Jr. not only does, but also teaches. On Tuesday, he will present a session titled “Planning, Organizing, Formatting and Executing the Mediation of a Complex, Multi‐Party, Multi‐Issue Lawsuit” to the American College of Civil Trial Mediators’ annual meeting in Dana Point, Calif.

“We will lay out a ‘typical’ complex litigation dispute – then walk through ways we might organize and structure a mediation of that case,” says Mr. Watson, a founding principal of Upchurch Watson White & Max Mediation Group. He has chosen a hypothetical case based on a construction lawsuit for his presentation because those tend to be multi-party, multi-issue, complex cases and because “I was a construction litigator and now am heavily involved in mediation of construction cases – it’s familiar ground.”

The annual meeting marks the ACCTM’s 20th anniversary. Mr. Watson was a founding fellow of the college and received its lifetime achievement award in 2005. For more information, please visit www.acctm.org.